Both Trump (and many of the Trump fanboys out there) and BlackLivesMatter (and other, similar groups) exist on the same plane of discourse (in the same way that Men's Rights Advocates exist on the same plane of discourse as Third Wave Feminists). That means that the most either will be able to do is argue to the point of stalemate, assuming an absence of violence. There is, nonetheless, a real potential for violence. The most violence we have seen so far has come from BlackLivesMatter.

What it means to exist on the same plane of discourse is this: if you conceive of a plane with two poles on opposing sides, Trump is on one side, and BLM is on the other. They balance one another, in that neither rises above one another. There is no progress made on the issues caused by either, because they both give their existence meaning by defining themselves against one another. There may be other political individuals or groups who are in a similar relationship, but these are the two I'm focusing on now.

The Trump and company v. BLM dynamic has many features. They clash with one another most chiefly over issues which relate to identity politics. While Trump has more things to say than rhetoric that is only concerned with identity politics, BLM's existence is predicated on identity politics. This is dangerous for two reasons: (1) it emphasizes political division based on inherent characteristics, and (2) those inherent characteristics cannot be rectified. BLM calls anyone who disagrees with them racists. Trump says that anyone who disagrees with him is out to ruin America. Both of these are meaningless.

Behind Trump, there exists a sizable population of the United States who, even if they don't personally support what Trump is doing, like how he is directly and indirectly attacking progressive groups, and, especially progressive groups whose activities inconvenience the rest of America. For example, BLM protests in city streets at rush hour. This causes everyone, including a bunch of black people, to hate them because their day has already been hard enough as it is. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? This is how Trump's popularity is bolstered.

Behind BLM, there exists a sizable population of the United States who, even if they don't personally support what BLM is doing, like how they are directly and indirectly attacking conservative groups, and, especially conservative groups whose activities progressives regard as "racist" or "sexist" or "bigoted." For example, progressives far and wide have described Trump as someone who uses "dog whistle" tactics to incite people to violence. This is ironic, in light of the fact that BLM has caused every instance of violence at Trump rallies, and BLM has shot police officers. But nonetheless, the enemy of my enemy principal here is how BLM continues to get support. Progressives don't like how Trump talks about issues, so they support factionalism that appears to challenge him.

This puts us between a rock and a hard place, with tremendous pressure mounting on both sides, waiting for something to happen.... which is bad. Both sides are highly interested in blaming the other for everything that is wrong with the world. Both sides engage in spectacular misrepresentations of reality. Both sides play to their supporters fears and prejudices, with great success. Both sides are doing this to advance their political purposes. Both sides refute only the worst and most absurd interpretation of their opponents, for the purpose of making themselves appear more legitimate. Both sides maintain an "us versus them" mentality of engagement. Both sides portray the world in accordance with very monolithic narratives.

At 7/17/2016 7:59:46 PM, YYW wrote:Both Trump (and many of the Trump fanboys out there) and BlackLivesMatter (and other, similar groups) exist on the same plane of discourse (in the same way that Men's Rights Advocates exist on the same plane of discourse as Third Wave Feminists). That means that the most either will be able to do is argue to the point of stalemate, assuming an absence of violence. There is, nonetheless, a real potential for violence. The most violence we have seen so far has come from BlackLivesMatter.

What it means to exist on the same plane of discourse is this: if you conceive of a plane with two poles on opposing sides, Trump is on one side, and BLM is on the other. They balance one another, in that neither rises above one another. There is no progress made on the issues caused by either, because they both give their existence meaning by defining themselves against one another. There may be other political individuals or groups who are in a similar relationship, but these are the two I'm focusing on now.

The Trump and company v. BLM dynamic has many features. They clash with one another most chiefly over issues which relate to identity politics. While Trump has more things to say than rhetoric that is only concerned with identity politics, BLM's existence is predicated on identity politics. This is dangerous for two reasons: (1) it emphasizes political division based on inherent characteristics, and (2) those inherent characteristics cannot be rectified. BLM calls anyone who disagrees with them racists. Trump says that anyone who disagrees with him is out to ruin America. Both of these are meaningless.

Behind Trump, there exists a sizable population of the United States who, even if they don't personally support what Trump is doing, like how he is directly and indirectly attacking progressive groups, and, especially progressive groups whose activities inconvenience the rest of America. For example, BLM protests in city streets at rush hour. This causes everyone, including a bunch of black people, to hate them because their day has already been hard enough as it is. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? This is how Trump's popularity is bolstered.

Behind BLM, there exists a sizable population of the United States who, even if they don't personally support what BLM is doing, like how they are directly and indirectly attacking conservative groups, and, especially conservative groups whose activities progressives regard as "racist" or "sexist" or "bigoted." For example, progressives far and wide have described Trump as someone who uses "dog whistle" tactics to incite people to violence. This is ironic, in light of the fact that BLM has caused every instance of violence at Trump rallies, and BLM has shot police officers. But nonetheless, the enemy of my enemy principal here is how BLM continues to get support. Progressives don't like how Trump talks about issues, so they support factionalism that appears to challenge him.

This puts us between a rock and a hard place, with tremendous pressure mounting on both sides, waiting for something to happen.... which is bad. Both sides are highly interested in blaming the other for everything that is wrong with the world. Both sides engage in spectacular misrepresentations of reality. Both sides play to their supporters fears and prejudices, with great success. Both sides are doing this to advance their political purposes. Both sides refute only the worst and most absurd interpretation of their opponents, for the purpose of making themselves appear more legitimate. Both sides maintain an "us versus them" mentality of engagement. Both sides portray the world in accordance with very monolithic narratives.

At 7/17/2016 7:59:46 PM, YYW wrote:Both Trump (and many of the Trump fanboys out there) and BlackLivesMatter (and other, similar groups) exist on the same plane of discourse (in the same way that Men's Rights Advocates exist on the same plane of discourse as Third Wave Feminists). That means that the most either will be able to do is argue to the point of stalemate, assuming an absence of violence. There is, nonetheless, a real potential for violence. The most violence we have seen so far has come from BlackLivesMatter.

What it means to exist on the same plane of discourse is this: if you conceive of a plane with two poles on opposing sides, Trump is on one side, and BLM is on the other. They balance one another, in that neither rises above one another. There is no progress made on the issues caused by either, because they both give their existence meaning by defining themselves against one another. There may be other political individuals or groups who are in a similar relationship, but these are the two I'm focusing on now.

The Trump and company v. BLM dynamic has many features. They clash with one another most chiefly over issues which relate to identity politics. While Trump has more things to say than rhetoric that is only concerned with identity politics, BLM's existence is predicated on identity politics. This is dangerous for two reasons: (1) it emphasizes political division based on inherent characteristics, and (2) those inherent characteristics cannot be rectified. BLM calls anyone who disagrees with them racists. Trump says that anyone who disagrees with him is out to ruin America. Both of these are meaningless.

Behind Trump, there exists a sizable population of the United States who, even if they don't personally support what Trump is doing, like how he is directly and indirectly attacking progressive groups, and, especially progressive groups whose activities inconvenience the rest of America. For example, BLM protests in city streets at rush hour. This causes everyone, including a bunch of black people, to hate them because their day has already been hard enough as it is. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? This is how Trump's popularity is bolstered.

Behind BLM, there exists a sizable population of the United States who, even if they don't personally support what BLM is doing, like how they are directly and indirectly attacking conservative groups, and, especially conservative groups whose activities progressives regard as "racist" or "sexist" or "bigoted." For example, progressives far and wide have described Trump as someone who uses "dog whistle" tactics to incite people to violence. This is ironic, in light of the fact that BLM has caused every instance of violence at Trump rallies, and BLM has shot police officers. But nonetheless, the enemy of my enemy principal here is how BLM continues to get support. Progressives don't like how Trump talks about issues, so they support factionalism that appears to challenge him.

This puts us between a rock and a hard place, with tremendous pressure mounting on both sides, waiting for something to happen.... which is bad. Both sides are highly interested in blaming the other for everything that is wrong with the world. Both sides engage in spectacular misrepresentations of reality. Both sides play to their supporters fears and prejudices, with great success. Both sides are doing this to advance their political purposes. Both sides refute only the worst and most absurd interpretation of their opponents, for the purpose of making themselves appear more legitimate. Both sides maintain an "us versus them" mentality of engagement. Both sides portray the world in accordance with very monolithic narratives.

Where does that leave us? Obviously not in a good place.

You are describing a culture clash.

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.